(ADAPTED FROM THE GUARDIAN)
The gunman who killed 58 people and wounded 527 in Las Vegas on Sunday night qualified as a “super-owner” – one of the estimated 7.7 million Americans who own between eight and 140 guns.
Little is yet known about Stephen Paddock and his motives. But the apparent ease (facilidad) with which he acquired his arsenal – 42 guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition, according to police – has renewed the urgency of a perennial American question: why can’t the United States effect sensible gun control?
Look at Australia, which enacted (promulgaron) a ban (prohibición) and mandatory (obligatorio, forzoso) buyback (recompra)of more than 600,000 long guns following a mass shooting (tiroteo) in 1996, effectively ending the problem of mass shootings (already rare) and halving (to halve: reducir a la mitad) gun deaths. Why can’t the United States do that?
From one angle, the answer is complicated. It involves the powerful gun lobby, political partisanship (partidismo político), the hundreds of millions of guns already in US civilian hands, the fact that mass shootings, while horrifying, represent only a sliver of US gun deaths, and a national mythology attached to guns.
From another angle, the answer is simple. The United States could, in fact, adopt gun control – if the public felt strongly enough about it. “If public opinion does not demand change in Congress, it will not change,” Barack Obama said in June 2014.
A majority of US gun owners – 74% – say the right to own a gun is “essential” to their freedom, while only 44% believe that the ease with which people can legally obtain guns contributes at least a fair amount to gun violence. The disagreements only expand from there.
In the wake of the most deadly mass shooting in the United States, here are key features of the American gun control debate.
How outrage fizzles (desaparecer, esfumarse)
Opponents of gun control feared new restrictions after the killing of 20 six- and seven-year-olds at Sandy Hook elementary school in December 2012. The national outrage was intense, and legislators who previously were not interested in gun control measures suddenly were.
Two senators, Democrat Joe Manchin and Republican Pat Toomey, sponsored a bill (proyecto de ley) that would have imposed universal background (antecedentes) checks for commercial gun purchases, including at gun shows and over the internet. Eighty-four percent of Americans favor such a law.
But after participating in initial negotiations over the bill, the National Rifle Association came out in strong opposition and falsely claimed the bill would lead to a national gun registry. “The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” Obama said in a furious Rose Garden speech.
‘Successes’ at gun control
While the national focus on gun control always intensifies after mass shootings, mass shootings account for only a small proportion of US gun deaths annually. Gun violence instead is concentrated in the country’s poorest, most racially segregated neighborhoods, with African Americans, who represent 13% of the total population, making up more than half of overall gun murder victims.
Is it all the NRA’s fault?
Obama said that senators who had not dared to support the bill have the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after (perseguir) them in future elections.
NRA members are known for being politically active – showing up at public meetings, bombarding congressional offices with telephone calls, and for voting.
What kind of gun control?
One hurdle (obstáculo) to effective gun control measures in the United States is a disagreement over what kind of action is needed. Focus on a new military-style weapons ban may detract from a potential ban on high-capacity magazines, which may be the more effective measure to limit the terrible toll of mass shootings. Researchers also call for (exigen) more investment in threat assessment (evaluación) and intervention programs. Community advocates urge more funding (financiación) for local programs that have been shown to reduce gang-related murder. Health experts urge the public to recognize that mental health is a serious factor in gun suicide.
Are there simply too many guns are out there?
There were about 265m, at last count – more than one for every adult American. That means that any new gun control measure in the United States advances against an ominous (amenazante) reality, of a country already flooded with guns. That reality is the core of gun advocates’ claim that new legislation to limit gun ownership would not increase public safety while funneling (to funnel: canalizar, encauzar) gun possession toward lawbreakers.
The American gun mythology
Debate rages as to whether (se ha desatado un debate en torno a) the framers (legislador, artífice) of the constitution drafted the second amendment, which enshrines (recoge) the American right to bear (tener) arms, as a hedge against private militias; as an affirmation of the country’s revolutionary roots; as an acknowledgment (reconocimiento) of a divine individual right; or as all of the above. From the revolutionary war to the genocide of Native Americans to the taming (to tame: domesticar) of the western wilderness (tierra salvaje) to the ratification of the code of anti-government American individualism, US history is filled with guns. The future may be, too.
